Death of 91-year-old spotlights line between care and killing

Maria 'Concha' Lopez, living with her great-niece, dies weighing 35 pounds and covered with sores. Was the 91-year-old's death murder or natural causes?

By Maria L. La Ganga, Los Angeles Times June 2, 2011

Reporting from Madera, Calif. -- 'Don't leave me," Stephanie Hernandez implored, as she fumbled with her cellphone to dial 911. "I need you. I need you."

Hernandez had just changed her great-aunt's diaper and was coaxing her to take a sip of water when Maria "Concha" Lopez, 91, stopped breathing.

CPR was out of the question, Hernandez told the emergency dispatcher: "She's too fragile. We could break her, her bones." The dispatcher talked the distraught 26-year-old through the basics of mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.

But when firefighters and paramedics opened the door to the little house on South A Street that December morning, they were immediately overwhelmed. By the stench — urine, feces, rotting flesh. By the mess — soiled diapers, used bandages, a stained mattress.

Most of all, though, by Lopez's body. The bed-bound woman who'd suffered from dementia and shied away from doctors weighed just over 35 pounds and was covered in bedsores, some so deep they bared bone. A metal rod from hip surgery was visible.

Hernandez was arrested and then charged with murdering the woman she had bathed, fed and changed for three years. She would be put on trial, accused not of any overt violence against the woman who had raised her but of failure as a caregiver.

During five weeks of emotional testimony this spring, defense attorneys portrayed Hernandez as a loving niece whose meticulous efforts kept an old woman alive even as she lost 65% of her body weight. Projecting gruesome autopsy photos on a big white screen, the prosecutor described neglect so severe it amounted to criminal negligence.

In the end, the trial showcased the difficult questions facing doctors, courts and families today, when the "old old," 85 and up, are the fastest-growing segment of the population, when more than 43 million Americans care for aging relatives or friends and when neither science nor the law has kept pace.

What is elder abuse? When does inadequate care become criminal? Can the elderly be forced to seek help? And what exactly does a "normal" death look like?

"I would say that first responders and medical examiners haven't seen a lot of cases like this — yet," said Dr. Brad Stuart, chief medical officer for Sutter Care at Home and a researcher in the management of advanced illness. "But this is not going to be an unusual case in a few years."

It is April, mid-trial, and Hernandez reminisces from behind a thick plastic barrier in the visiting area of Madera County jail. She has been held here for more than a year and in the process lost custody of her 4-year-old daughter, Alyanna.

Hernandez had lived on South A Street in this hard-knocks farm town since she was 4 months old. Her mother, an agricultural worker, needed to go back to the fields and left the infant in the care of her four great-aunts — Guadalupe, Ramona, Frances and Concha Lopez.

Guadalupe retired from the fields to care for Hernandez but died when the girl was 12. Neither Guadalupe nor her sisters ever married.

"I was basically her daughter," says a tearful Hernandez. "Her last words were, 'I love you, Stephanie' in the hospital."

Madera Community Hospital is less than a mile from the jail. Hernandez knows the squat, tan facility well; she spent long days and nights there as her great-aunts fell to the scourges of age.

"Ramona declined in my senior year in high school, '01," says Hernandez. "She had a massive heart attack and a mild stroke at home. I was there. She had fallen.... I picked her up and called 911."

Frances died in 2003. Ramona went three years later. Concha Lopez had watched her sisters die in medical facilities and made her family promise to spare her such an end.

Then she broke her hip.

Hernandez had been working her way through Fresno City College by selling cellphones. She left school when she became pregnant with Alyanna in 2006, and her family pressed her into caring for Lopez.


Read the complete story in the L.A. Times

Seniors for Sale: Hiding harm: the human toll

Letter to the: Senate Special Committee on Aging

Written Testimony of Latifa S. Ring National Organization to End Guardianship Abuse (NOTEGA)

To the: Senate Special Committee on Aging for the hearing on Justice for All: Ending Elder Abuse, Neglect and Financial Exploitation

March 15, 2011

Senate Special Committee on Aging
G31 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Attn: Senator Herb Kohl

Dear Chairman Kohl, Senator Corker and distinguished Committee members:

Thank you for holding the recent hearing “Justice for All: Ending Elder Abuse, Neglect and Financial Exploitation” to address the crisis of elder abuse and financial exploitation of America’s elderly citizens and thank you for allowing Mickey Rooney to share his cry for an end to elder abuse with the committee and with the American Public.

Financial Exploitation and Abuse of the Elderly has become the crime of the 21st Century and has truly placed a black mark on our nation. Hubert Humphrey once said

“the moral test of a government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of their life, the children, those who are in the twilight of their lives, the elderly and those who are in the shadows of life, the disabled the weak and the vulnerable. “
How will we be judged as a nation and as a government if we do not take the steps necessary to end this crime against America’s most vulnerable citizens?

Elder abuse and financial exploitation of the elderly in our communities and when done by private citizens is being called a crime, yet quietly all across this nation elderly and disabled citizens are being abused and financially exploited under Adult Guardianships under the guise of protection and the color of law. In the courtrooms of our States, abuse and exploitation of vulnerable citizens is treated as if it is perfectly legal. Judges routinely rubber stamp exorbitant fees for services that do not benefit the wards resulting in financial exploitation of their estates. Family members and friends all over this country are crying out about the abuse and neglect of their loved ones in guardianship that they are powerless to protect yet it appears there is no one listening because there is a guardian and the court appointed them.

Under guardianships a person can lose all of their civil rights and their right to ask for protection under the law. Lives and assets can essentially be stolen. The perpetrators of financial exploitation and abuse in guardianships are getting bolder and often times elderly citizens with assets are targeted and adjudicated as incapacitated and placed under a guardianship or conservatorship just to give someone else control over an estate which they can then loot. Other times elderly citizens who are alleged to be incapacitated are placed into guardianships when they have family and friends who are willing and able to help them or when they only have a minor ailment; again only to give the perpetrators access to the estate. Many family members are tricked into believing that seeking guardianship will help to protect a loved one only to find themselves on the end of a never-ending onslaught of unproven allegations of wrong-doing deliberately launched to malign the family member and prevent them from being appointed as guardian. This tactic clears the list of available guardians and makes room for the perpetrators intent on looting the estate. When greed is the motivating factor in guardianships, the welfare of the ward takes a back seat and abuse of the wards is allowed by the guardians and other professionals more intent only on lining their pockets than caring for the vulnerable person. It seems that the “name of the game” in guardianships is to bill for as many services as possible as fast as possible knowing that the judge will routinely rubberstamp the fee applications. This routine approval occurs either because the judges are busy trying to clear an overloaded docket, they do not have time or resources to review the fee applications, they know the American Taxpayers will take care of the ward with Medicaid dollars or they want to make sure the guardians and attorneys (some of whom may have owe political favors to) get paid. It is just easier that way. Family members who complain may find themselves losing the right to visit their own loved ones or being told by the Court that they have no standing to speak on behalf of the ward that now has a guardian.

As I stated in my testimony to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime Terrorism and Homeland Security, it is almost as if guardianships can be used as a form of identity theft. The guardian can execute any and all documents on behalf of the ward. This powerful position gives them unfettered access to the ward’s life and property. In the wrong hands this power can be and is enormously abused and can even be lethal to the vulnerable person. Without proper controls lives can be are being stolen.

When will our National Leaders finally address the Elder Abuse and Financial Exploitation of the Elderly that is occurring in Guardianships?

We have been calling for National Reforms to address Elder Abuse and Financial Exploitation in guardianships since 2008 when our group the “National Elder Abuse and Guardianship Victims Taskforce for Change” submitted a platform proposal to End Elder Abuse and Guardianship Abuse for the senior’s plank of the DNC platform. Many other groups and citizens have also been calling for reform and since 2008 and we have continued our call for National reforms with online petitions and letters to our State and National leaders.

I could fill reams of papers with examples of abuse and exploitation in guardianships but will limit this to the summaries I have attached to this testimony as appendix (A) and the comments made as part of the petition attached as appendix (B). I simply ask the following questions:

Why is it legal to abuse and rob the elderly in guardianships?

Why is it legal to force an “alleged” incapacitated person into guardianship with an emergency or some other hearing without due process of the law where the ward is not present and/or not represented by counsel? Why are our constitutional due process rights under the 14th amendment not protected in guardianships?

Why is it legal to isolate a ward, to over medicate, to chemically restrain, to sterilize and even authorize an early death through hospice in guardianships?

Why do the advance directives of these dear elderly citizens appear to mean nothing? The designation of a pre-need guardian, a power of attorney or health care surrogate are routine ignored in the incapacity process.

Why is it legal for one person (a judge) to give one human being to another private citizen (“the guardian”), then walk away, and let that person have their way with the incapacitated person and their estate?

Why are there no jury trials?

Why are these wards of the State in guardianships not being protected by the State… are they not wards of the State?

Why is it that when someone allegedly steals from an elderly or vulnerable person that the alleged victim can be sent into a guardianship instead of the crime being investigated by the criminal justice system and adult protective services? The victim is forced to pay for the crime in a probate court instead of it being handled by the criminal justice system where the victim doesn’t have to foot the bill to get justice? Furthermore, rarely are the allegations of wrong doing that create the need for guardianship ever proven in these guardianship cases. Instead, they are being used as an excuse to take over the life of the person and their property. Why do the American Rules of Civil Discovery not apply to Guardianship Proceeding?

Why do we need to have emergency hearings for guardianships when adult protective services should be able to do their job and protect the vulnerable alleged incapacitated person until they can be afforded due process?

Why is it legal to bill tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars to a ward for services that do not benefit them in breach of any fiduciary duty and yet it is not called a crime, it is called protection of the ward ?

Why is it legal for a guardian to deny visitation to a ward, to allow them to be isolated from their community and their loved ones ?

All over this country, people are outraged by what they are seeing done to their loved ones in guardianships. Many families are torn apart and many are secondary victims who suffer from the horrific abuse of not being able to visit their loved ones, not being able to protect them and sometimes not even being notified of a loved one’s death so they can attend their funeral.

There is nothing new about guardianship abuse to report. It is the same broken system with the same crimes that have gone on for over 30 years since the Claude Pepper days when the late Congressman submitted the “1989 Guardianship Rights Act” that clearly stated that the 14th amendment rights of the elderly in guardianship were being violated. Three GAO reports have been issued since 2004 that all spell out the problems in guardianships. Numerous Media outlets have reported horrifying cases of abuse and exploitation. Agencies have reported the problem. This committee has held several hearing including one in 2006 and the record reflects the enormous problem our seniors are facing. In May 2010, I testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime Terrorism and Homeland Security about this problem. I stand by my stated belief that without real and meaningful reforms, guardianships can and will continue to be used to steal lives and assets under what I can only equate to a legalized form of identity theft. Attached to this written testimony is a petition signed by close to 1200 people calling for National Reforms to End Elder Abuse and Guardianship Abuse. This petition can also be viewed online at http://www.facebook.com/l/f742ckOISH6OKSm5kKz_NPTovuA/www.endguardianshipabuse.org . I respectfully request that this petition be put on the record with this written testimony.

Members of the committee, it is time for action on guardianship abuse and it is time to recognize that elder abuse and financial exploitation in and under a guardianship or conservatorship is no less a crime that it is when the perpetrator is a family member or nursing home in the community. In fact, elder abuse and exploitation of the incapacitated person is the worst form of abuse as it is perpetrated against the most vulnerable of our society, the victims who have had their voice stripped of them and who are powerless to report the crime.

The federal government and your Senate Special Committee on Aging should take an interest in ending the abuse and exploitation in guardianship. They should take an interest because of the cost to the taxpayers in State Medicaid and matching federal Medicaid dollars, because of the 14th amendment rights that are violated in guardianships and because elder abuse and financial exploitation is a crime even if done under the guise of protection and under the color of law.

I close by echoing the request made by Mickey Rooney that you PLEASE STOP ELDER ABUSE and STOP IT NOW … not only in the communities, not only in a private homes, not only in our nursing homes but also when it is perpetrated under guardianships and conservatorships through our courts.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to submit this testimony and I hope the committee will consider having a separate hearing on the problems with guardianships and respectfully request we be permitted to have a member of our organization testify and provide more additional information on this problem. I also ask that the committee please take a serious look at the problems raised in the GAO report issued in 2010 and invite victims and family members to come to Washington and share their stories so the committee can understand what is really happening on the ground. They can bring the perspective of the victims have been stripped of their voice to speak, they are the constituents of the members of this committee and they are the eyewitnesses to this terrible silent crime of elder abuse and exploitation that is being perpetrated under the guise of protection.

Respectfully submitted,

Latifa S. Ring
President
The National Organization to End Guardianship Abuse

Houston, Texas

stopelderabuse@ http://www.facebook.com/l/f742cSyyeKSjiEhi7szwfNFrfjg/stopelderabuse.net

endguardianshipabuse.org

www.endguardianshipabuse.org

Survival of Aging Network In Jeopardy

By Emily Bazar and April Dembosky, Special to The Sacramento Second of two parts

After a severe leg infection landed Bill Hollingworth in the hospital a few years ago, the Citrus Heights man was sent to a nursing home to recuperate for what he hoped would be a few weeks.

A few weeks turned into 13 months.

Hollingworth, who relies on a wheelchair to get around, figures he would have stayed there indefinitely if he didn't have access to In-Home Supportive Services, a publicly financed program that helps some low-

income elderly and disabled people receive care at home.

Now Hollingworth gets 236 hours of monthly paid care in his apartment from a worker who cleans, cooks, helps with bills, bathes him and assists with other life necessities. "I wouldn't be able to function without her," said Hollingworth, 63.

California was a pioneer in creating home- and community-based options to nursing homes more than 30 years ago with programs such as IHSS and Adult Day Health Care. In the past several years, however, state and local budget cuts and policy decisions have battered these and a range of other long-term care programs, resulting in reduced

services, slashed staff levels and in some cases, closed doors.

These cuts, and more likely to follow, could threaten a promising strategy for making affordable the health needs of the baby boomer population, which begins to hit 65 next month. Health policy experts agree that unless more of seniors' care can be shifted to less expensive care in their homes and community centers, and away from nursing homes and hospitals, the system may become unsustainable.

The outlook is bleak enough that some officials are exploring nongovernmental solutions, such as transferring some programs to nonprofits.

"It's not an overstatement to say the survival of the aging network is in jeopardy, pending what the state budget does, and then the cascading effect to county and city budgets after that," said Will Tift, planner for the Area 4 Agency on Aging, which serves Sacramento and six other counties.

Come February, all IHSS recipients will receive a 3.6 percent reduction in hours, a result of state budget cuts. Hollingworth will lose more than eight hours per month, which means that important but less critical tasks, such as range-of-motion exercises for his legs, won't get done.

"It seems like every time they're having a problem with the budget, who are the ones that suffer? The poor, the disabled and the elderly," he said.


State's home care legacy

In-Home Supportive Services is for low-income people who are older than 65, disabled or blind and need help with the activities of daily living such as grooming, dressing and cooking.

California's program, the largest in the country, has grown significantly. In the 2005-06 fiscal year, there were 352,026 average monthly recipients, compared with 428,962 in 2009-10, according to the state Department of Social Services.

Counties administer the program, and their social workers determine eligibility and hours for each recipient, with a maximum of 283.

Stanislaus County serves about 6,200 recipients and pays in-home workers $9.38 an hour.

This year, Stanislaus County reduced the IHSS budget to $44.4 million, down from $58.3 million last year. The county is responsible for $2 million in funding, the bulk of which comes from federal and state revenue.

Stanislaus County is seeking a pay cut from in-home care workers because money isn't available to fund the program through June 30. If enrollment trends continue, the program will need an additional $1.3 million from the county next year and $12.2 million from the federal and state governments.


Day centers slashed

Adult day health centers are another pillar of government's push to keep seniors out of institutions.

Centers such as Miller's Place on McHenry Avenue in Modesto are where frail older adults with physical or cognitive limitations can spend the day, in part to help give caregivers and families a break.

The Modesto center operated by the Doctors Medical Center Foundation gives clients a place to enjoy social activities, music, art, crafts and games, as well as physical and occupational therapy. There is a special program for Alzheimer's patients.

A Nov. 29 fire caused smoke damage to the building and the program closed for three weeks. But the center is serving clients again.

In part over budget concerns, the state enacted a moratorium in 2004 that prevents new Adult Day Health Centers from participating in the Medi-Cal program, with limited exceptions.

There were 365 centers when the moratorium went into effect, and now there are 312, according to the state Department of Aging. Enrollment also has declined.

Some centers closed because they're expensive to run and others were closed by the state for quality reasons, said Lydia Missaelides, executive director of the California Association for Adult Day Services. Providers haven't opened new ones because of high start-up costs and fears they won't be financially sustainable without Medi-Cal reimbursements, she said.

Budget cuts, such as the recent elimination of state funding for the Alzheimer's Day Care Resource Center program, also have strained Adult Day Health Care. The Alz-

heimer's program has provided specialized care for Alzheimer's and dementia patients through some ADHC centers.

"It makes no sense," said Thomas Truax, chief executive officer of the DMC Foundation in Modesto, speaking earlier this year. He noted that nursing home care costs the state about $250 per day, but care at an adult day health center costs $77 per day.

The foundation has recruited volunteers to Miller's Place at a time when state budget cuts could mean less money for the care of older adults. The organization opened a thrift store last year, hoping that proceeds from sales would help sustain the program.

Violeta Gonzalez, 80, started attending the Carmichael ADHC center three times a week after her husband died this year. For Gonzalez, who is mentally sharp and physically strong, the center allows her to get out of her house and socialize.

The center's bus picks her up at her door in the morning and drops her off in the afternoon. "It gives me something to do. I don't have to bother anybody to take me here or take me there," said Gonzalez.

The thought of a nursing home or assisted-living facility makes her shudder. "From here," she said of her home, "I'm going to the grave."


Assisted-living oversight

As publicly funded programs shrink, there's been a boom in private-pay assisted living facilities.

The residential care industry that caters to middle-class Californians who will pay out of pocket has steadily grown in the past decade, with 7,822 of them now in California, up more than 25 percent.

But these facilities increasingly are taking on customers with significant health needs, raising questions about whether more oversight is needed. Residential care sites are not medical facilities. The vast majority are small homes, with 15 beds or fewer, where residents can get help with daily tasks such as dressing, eating or managing medications. Costs can range from $2,000 to $6,000 a month or more.

However, as the aging population lives longer with more chronic conditions, the residents of assisted-living facilities have gotten sicker than originally intended. For example, more have dementia.

"These are not the assisted-living facilities of 15 years ago. Across the country you see facilities admitting and retaining people with higher health care needs," said Eric Carlson, directing attorney with the National Senior Citizens Law Center in Los Angeles.

Carlson said the state needs to demand higher standards for health care. He recommends that California follow the lead of some other states, which have adopted tiered licensing standards that take into account the changing nature of long-term care.

Just as more facilities open, budget cuts to the Department of Social Services and attorney general's office have reduced oversight.

"There are fewer investigators, fewer ombudsmen and fewer people in the licensing agencies," said Jody Feldman, deputy attorney general at the Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse.

Patient-safety advocates say there are many potential weaknesses in state law: Facilities are inspected once every five years, facility operators need attend only a 40-hour certification program, and staff members need just 10 hours of training.

Even discerning family members don't always catch problems at assisted-living facilities.

When Kim Kuviora, 50, of Folsom couldn't take care of her dad at home anymore, she found an assisted-living facility in Orangevale.

"It was just like an Embassy Suites. It was so beautiful," she said. "And they sold me that, hook, line and sinker."

But there were problems with the health care Kuviora's dad received, so bad that she moved him out and filed a lawsuit against the facility. They settled, so Kuviora can't discuss the details.

"All I can say is, with every single facility I ever dealt with, it seems like all facilities can't seem to get medications handled correctly or dispensed correctly," she said.

Kuviora said she and her husband talk all the time about how to prepare for their potential long-term care needs, especially because they don't have children to care for them.

"We are savers, big savers," she said. "But I don't think even at this point that we saved enough to be able to afford what long-term care is going to cost by the time we need it. I don't think we'll be close."

Source=>>here

Elder Abuse: America's Dirty Secret

Ken Connor

The plight of elderly Americans has been a top concern of the Center for a Just Society since our inception in 2005, and as senior citizens comprise an ever increasing percentage of our nation's population, the need is greater than ever to draw attention to a little discussed, little known epidemic in American health care. According to a new study released this month by the American Association for Justice (AAJ), eldercare abuse in America has escalated from a shameful problem to a full-blown humanitarian crisis. As the report illustrates, our nation's looming demographic boom will pose more than a financial challenge for our society – it will pose a moral challenge that is just as important: What kind of care and treatment does our society consider appropriate for its most vulnerable members?

As an attorney I have spent decades representing elderly men and women who have endured unspeakable abuse and neglect in nursing homes. Often, these conditions were so reprehensible and so degrading that – were they unearthed at daycare centers or even federal penitentiaries – members of Congress and the media would be crusading for reform. The AAJ's report is rife with illustrations: A nursing home resident whose leg was amputated after becoming infested with maggots; an Alzheimer's patient who died trapped in a freezer; a Florida nursing home resident who suffered from multiple falls, severe weight loss, multiple pressure sores, infections, dehydration, and eventually death by starvation; patients at a home in Illinois who were given antipsychotic drug injections "assembly-line style" as a means of "chemical restraint;" and an elderly nursing home resident who was sexually assaulted in the middle of the night at the hands of an orderly who was an ex-con.

If something major doesn't change, and change soon, this is the kind of fate that awaits multitudes of Americans expected to join the ranks of the institutionalized elderly in the coming decades.

One of the major reasons why these reprehensible acts occur is because a culture of ruthless profiteering pervades much of the eldercare industry. Many nursing home operators are little more than real estate developers posing as health care providers. Large publicly owned companies and a consortium of private equity groups are finding the industry increasingly attractive. Their "rental units" are beds rather than apartments or condominiums or offices, and their "rental stream" is guaranteed by the federal government through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Patients with many needs (typically Medicare patients who have been just discharged from the hospital) are their target "market" because Medicare provides a higher reimbursement than other government entitlement programs. A filled bed represents a guaranteed income stream. An empty bed generates no revenue. Hence, the facilities engage in aggressive marketing campaigns to ensure high "occupancy levels." And since labor accounts for the largest expense in the nursing home budget, operators often understaff their facilities in order to maximize profits. While these practices may be good for the bottom line, they are devastating for the patients. From the AAJ report:

For-profit nursing homes have on average 32 percent fewer nurses and 47 percent higher deficiencies than their non-profit counterparts. . . . This increased emphasis on profits has led to a distressing rise in neglected and abused seniors. Between 2000 and 2008, instances of "immediate jeopardy" – violations likely to result in serious harm or even death – rose 22 percent. More than 90 percent of all nursing homes were guilty of at least one violation.

How have we allowed this to happen? In addition to the demographic and economic factors at play – the ranks of the elderly are swelling, the birthrate is declining, and our entitlement programs are on the brink of collapse – there is an underlying cultural component to the elder abuse crisis in America. Over the last several decades American society has gradually shifted from a "sanctity of life" to a "quality of life" ethic. Increasingly obsessed with youth and utility, we have come to evaluate the net worth of human beings based on cost-benefit ratios and quality of life calculus. And not surprisingly, the elderly (who cost more to maintain than they produce, whose functional capacities have deteriorated because of old age or illness, and who serve as unwelcome reminders of our own mortality) do not score well using these standards. In the next 20 or 30 years, when our expanding elder cohort is consuming valuable resources and is no longer deemed "useful," one shudders to imagine what "solutions" might be devised to deal with the growing problem of eldercare.

The crisis of eldercare abuse, then, is one that begs for our attention and demands a solution. First and foremost, it is critical that the American people begin to view eldercare as one of the great moral problems of our generation. For too long we have viewed the coming Senior Tsunami solely in abstract economic terms while ignoring the "human factors" at stake. For the younger generations in particular – those expected to bear the fiscal brunt of replenishing our anemic entitlement infrastructure – it is easy for a sentiment of bitterness to prevail. However, we must remember that the elderly – no matter how disabled or helpless – are human beings who deserve to be treated with the full measure of dignity and respect. America's senior citizens should not become victims of a sliding scale that erodes their humanity as their faculties decline. Those of us who care about the creation of a just society must be willing to defend the rights of the elderly no less vigorously than the rights of the unborn.

For Christians, the Bible is quite clear on this point. Most folks know that the Ten Commandments call upon us to honor our parents, but the Scriptures also tell us that we have a responsibility to care for our elders with willing hearts, in gratitude for the care they showed to us. St. Paul's first letter to Timothy tells us that children and grandchildren "should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God." (1 Tim. 5:4) Paul is adamant on this point: "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." (1 Tim. 5:8)

The Apostle Paul’s message runs against the grain of modern American culture, which places a significant value on the immediate family but focuses little on the moral and civic obligations we have to our extended family and community elders (so few of us, after all, even identify with a discrete community anymore!). All the more reason, then, why a targeted campaign to ensure justice for the infirm and the elderly is critical. Next to the battle to secure the rights of the unborn, protecting the rights of the elderly in America may well turn out to be the most important civil rights movement of the 21st century.

Source=>>Townhall.Com

REPORT TO ASSEMBLYMAN DAVE JONES : PROFESSIONAL FIDUCIARIES BUREAU

HISTORY

The California Professional Fiduciaries Bureau was established by an Act of the California Legislature in 2006, following public outcry over the revelations in a Los Angeles Times investigative series. Entitled "Guardians for Profit--When a Family Matter Becomes a Business," the Times series detailed corrupt and abusive practices by California conservators for the elderly and disabled. The population impacted by conservatorships constitute some of the most vulnerable and at risk citizens of the State of California.

As a source for the Times’ articles, I was in regular contact with the lead reporter for the series, Robin Fields and was personally aware that the Times did not publish details of some of the worst abuses. Nor did the series attempt to scrutinize the systemic accommodations which allowed the abuse to flourish. Some of these details were imparted to me by Fields in telephone conversations in late 2002. In a phone conversation which took place in September of 2003, Fields also disclosed to me that the articles, which were originally slated for publication in Fall of 2003, were being "sat on" by the editors of the Times. The series kicked off in November of 2005.

Governor Schwarzenegger line- item vetoed the funding for the PFB two years running and the Bureau finally opened its doors in 2008.

CURRENT CONCERNS

Recent revelations as to the functioning of the PFB point to considerable irregularities and support allegations that the PFB is violating not only the law which brought the Bureau into exitence, but is violating other laws as well, including sunshine and transparency laws.

According to its own statistics, published in its annual report, the PFB has done no
investigations and no referrals to law enforcement. When this reporter requested information relating to law enforcement referrals, I was told by DCA Legal Counsel Gary Duke that this was nondiscloseable information (Exhibit 1)

In fact, this information is clearly available in the annual report, which is online.

On September 1, 2010 this reporter requested the following information (email in its entirety below):

I would like to request the following stats:

1) the number of applications for license received by the PFB

2) the number of applications for license denied by the PFB

3) the number of complaints referred to law enforcement by the PFB/DCA

As this request only asks for stats, it is my understanding that the privacy concerns in the PRA are therefore honored and that you should have no problem --legally--fulfilling this request.

No response or acknowledgement to this PRA request has been received as of today, October 7, 2010. Per the CPRA, the Bureau has ten days to acknowledge the request and is in legal default.. A follow up email was also sent to Russ Heimerich, Press Officer for the DCA (Exhibit 2).

On August 16, 2010, this reporter memorialized in writing a previous verbal request, made to Legal Counsel Gary Duke, asking for the cost to the State of California on the Melodie Scott matter (Exhibit 3). Although Russ Heimerich assured me that my request would be responded to, the request has not been fulfilled as of October 7, 2010.

On July 24, 2010, this reporter had queried of Legal Counsel Gary Duke if either the PFB or DCA could possibly contact law enforcement concerning Melodie Scott's continuing to advertise herself as a Professional Fiduciary on her public website, in the face of being denied a licence (Exhibit 4a). Duke had previously informed me that this is a misdemeanor. This request was specifically made due to the repeated failure of law enforcement to act on reports alleging criminal activity by Melodie Scott. As a matter of fact, Gina Rilke, a resident of Riverside, California, had contacted the Redlands Police Department attempting to file this report on August 16, 2010,

Officer Eric Strobaugh informed Rilke that no charges would be filed against Scott based on her allegations and that the report needed to be tendered by the PFB. He did supply her an incident number, 100037514.

Gary Duke has declined to state whether or not the agencies have contacted law enforcement in this matter. A follow up call to the RPD in mid-August confirmed that no report had been entered by the DCA or PFB concerning this issue.

Gil Deluna, the head of the PFB, did respond to a PRA query on August 5, 2010 in which this reporter requested statistics (see Exhibit 5). When another PRA was filed requesting a further breakdown of the stats he provided, detailing the disposition of reports, DeLuna failed to respond.

The issue of disposition or resolution of reports is most troubling. On June 16, 2010, PFB analyst Angela Bigelow informed complainant Janis Schock that the PFB would have to get a court determination of wrongdoing before the PFB would investigate (Exhibit 6). This is a gross misstatement of the Professional Fiduciaries Act. Legal Counsel Gary Duke agreed that Bigelow wrote "erroneously" in her email to Schock. When this reporter questioned Duke as to whether Bigelow had closed other complaints "erroneously," he refused this information, stating that Bigelow's behavior was a personnel matter and thus not discloseable. The previously mentioned email to DeLuna (in Exhibit 5) was issued as an attempt to ferret out what is happening to complaints tendered to the PFB.

And that brings us to the question of how these complaints are being resolved, a question which remains unanswered. A number of complainants have contacted this reporter and stated that their complaints seem to have vanished into the bowels of the PFB, without any evidence or notice of resolution. No complainant has contacted this reporter stating that he or she has received a notice of resolution.

This reporter submitted her own complaint on September 26 2010 and I have not received an acknowledgement letter. At the time of submitting the report, I withdrew my previous report, which was over a year old and had not been acted upon.

Following the failure of the PFB to respond to my PRA request of September 1 and follow up emails (see Exhibit 1), I requested a blogger, Ray Fernandez of Elderabusehelp.org, to cut and paste my request and submit it to the Bureau (Exhibit 7). Fernandez received a reply within twenty four hours When I emailed Duke to ask him why he failed to respond to the PRA when it was first submitted by me, he again failed to respond (Exhibit 8).

It should be noted that the PFB's response to Fernandez contains the link to the annual report, which contains many of the stats I had requested and was previously told were nondiscloseable.

I have made it clear to the DCA that I believe that the Bureau is accommodating abuse and patently illegal practice by conservators and fiduciaries and that the Bureau's adherence to its mandate to provide oversight is nearly non- existent. This perception is increasingly buttressed by the following factors: The Bureau's own statistics; The Bureau's brazen disregard for sunshine laws; by the disturbing and quite illegal disposition of Janis Schock's complaint; as well as by the Bureau's failure to process other complaints.

The fact that the PFB does not "like" the viewpoint held by this reporter--a viewpoint which is appearing more and more to be supported by fact--does not give the PFB the latitude to ignore the Public Records Act. In fact, the continued denial of bonafide requests for information only supports the perception that something is very wrong indeed at the PFB.

CONCLUSION

The evidence is growing that the PFB is operating under a veil of secrecy and is doing so with contempt for the laws of the State of California. The PFB has violated its own process for handling incoming complaints and has demonstrated contempt for inquiries into its functioning. Of added concern is that a lawyer for the DCA, Gary Duke, has misstated the PRA and thereby inhibited release of information that is clearly available to the public in the annual report.

A thorough and public inquiry into these matters is therefore requested. The vulnerable citizens of the State of California are not being protected by such shoddy practices as detailed herein. The oversight promised by the PFA has not come to fruition; indeed, it appears that all that has been accomplished is that another layer of bureaucracy is now in place and California’s vulerable elders and disabled remain at risk to predatory and unscrupulous conservators.

Submitted this 7th day of October, 2010

Janet C. Phelan

258 A Street 1-15

Ashland, Oregon 97520

(541) 603-0514

Taking Care of Elders a Big Problem,But Should Convicted Felons Do It?

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Friday called the state's inability to stop scores of convicted felons from working in its home healthcare program a "public safety crisis" and demanded that lawmakers take action to address the situation.

The governor made his comments in a letter to legislative leaders after The Times reported that people convicted of such crimes as rape, murder and elder abuse are paid to provide services for some of the most vulnerable Californians in their residences.

Data provided by state officials show that at least 210 workers and applicants with felony convictions flagged by investigators as unsuitable for the In Home Supportive Services program are nonetheless scheduled to resume or begin employment. State and county investigators have not reported many others whose backgrounds include violent crimes because the rules of the program, as interpreted by a judge this year, permit felons to work in the program.

In the letter, the governor said numerous attempts by the administration to "engage" the Legislature on the issue have failed.

"I am hard pressed to imagine that any member of the Legislature would allow a convicted sex offender to take care of their own grandmother in a nursing home," Schwarzenegger wrote. "But if the Legislature continues to resist making changes in the law, the Legislature is essentially saying it is OK for that to occur to someone else's grandmother in their own home."

Read the full story here.

Edina woman gets control of life, may lose home

By JAMES ELI SHIFFER, Star Tribune

Isabelle Jessich got rid of her court-appointed guardian, but her house could be sold to pay legal fees.

Isabelle Jessich went to court Friday with two goals: to regain her liberty from a court-appointed guardian and to prevent him from selling her Edina home to pay $100,000 in fees for himself and seven lawyers.

Jessich succeeded in getting control of everything but her money, but she now faces the prospect of being sent back to a nursing home while her 17-year-old daughter could be placed in foster care.

Jessich, 57, has been battling for 20 months to take control of her life from Joseph Vogel, a professional guardian and conservator appointed by a Hennepin County judge in December 2008 to make decisions for her. Last year, Jessich made major strides to overcome the eating disorder, neurological problems and alcoholism that had made her a ward of the court. But Vogel would not let her leave a Robbinsdale nursing home and rejoin her daughter Allison, who was left to fend for herself.

After the Star Tribune reported on Jessich's situation in August 2009, state inspectors investigated and cited Robbinsdale Rehab and Care Center for failing to release Jessich. She moved back home in December. Since then, Jessich testified Friday, she has continued with physical therapy and other recovery activities. She said she is leading a "normal life."
But her struggle with Vogel over her finances could bring chaos back into her life. Vogel said he's owed almost $25,000, and lawyers in the case -- whose fees must be paid by Jessich -- have racked up more than $80,000 in bills. Vogel can't get access to Jessich's sizable inheritance in Belgium, worth at least $200,000, because Belgian officials don't recognize his authority, Vogel said.

In Hennepin County District Court on Friday, Vogel asked Judge Jay Quam for permission to sell Jessich's Edina home because it would be in her "best interest." He described the deal as a "last resort."

If the house were sold, the judge asked Vogel, what would happen to Jessich? Vogel said she would go back to the nursing home. Then Quam asked where Jessich's daughter would live. She could go into foster care, the guardian said, or perhaps be emancipated. Vogel said he didn't know how old she was.

Vogel blamed Jessich for the money crisis. "Had we had cooperation from Ms. Jessich, the bills would have been one-tenth of what they are, the estate would have been settled last June and Ms. Jessich would be in a far better financial position," he testified. "I think that's truly sad."
Jessich said her guardian turned her into a "prisoner." She said he kept her passport, preventing her from traveling to Belgium and dealing with the estate. "He's not helped me at all," she said.

Quam dismissed the guardianship, which means Jessich can make her own decisions about living arrangements. But for now, Vogel will continue to act as her conservator and handle Jessich's money on behalf of the court. Quam indicated he would rule on whether to end the conservatorship or allow Vogel to sell Jessich's house within a month.

That house was nearly lost at a foreclosure auction, but Jessich arranged for someone to pay the back mortgage payments. Jessich refused to identify her "guardian angel," and the judge warned that failing to answer the question would hurt her position.

When Jessich's daughter was asked how her mother manages the household finances, she said she keeps out of those decisions.

"I don't like how money affects people," Allison Jessich testified. "It makes monsters out of people

Scott Licensing Decision Anticipated In August

By Janet Phelan

The Department of Consumer Affairs has put off a final decision on conservator Melodie Scott´s licensing, the Sentinel has learned.

Scott had appealed the decision, which was tendered this spring by the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), following hearings on her licensing in Oakland Administrative Law Court, which spanned from May to October of last year. While Administrative Law Judge Melissa Crowell had opined that Scott should receive a probationary license, the DCA overrode Crowell´s decision and denied her application. Scott subsequently appealed. The DCA was scheduled to issue a final decision in July but this has been deferred now until August.

In 2005, the Los Angeles Times published a series of articles exposing multiple problems with conservatorships. Scott was featured in the first of the series. As a result of public outcry in response to the series, the California Legislature created by an act of law the Professional Fiduciary Bureau, which began operation in 2008. One of the first tasks of the newly created agency was to consider applications for licensure by fiduciaries, who previously had been unlicensed. Scott applied for licensure and her application was denied on grounds that she made false statements on her licensing application. Later, two more counts were added: 1) that she continued to act as a professional fiduciary after her license was denied and 2) that she had a drunk driving conviction.

Black´s Law Dictionary defines a conservator as a protector or guardian. Conservatorshiops are generally initiated through court proceedings, when there are allegations that a party lacks competency to handle his or her own affairs. There are two kinds of conservatorships in the State of California--conservatorships of the person and conservative of the estate.

Upon the initiation of a conservatorship of person, all personal decisions, such as whether the alleged incapacitated person may marry or see family and friends, are transferred to the conservator. When a conservatorship of estate is initiated, all assets of the alleged incapacitated person are transferred to the care and protection of the conservator. A number of national grassroots organizations have sprung up recently, based on concerns that civil rights and property rights are being violated in conservatorship proceedings.

Numerous other allegations have surfaced concerning Melodie Scott and her company, CARE, Inc, including embezzlement of client funds, undue influence on local judges, threats made to family members of conservatees and inappropriate use of ¨Power of Health Care¨ to terminate the lives of a number of her conservatees.

Scott recently sold her building, which was located at 25 E. State Street in Redlands, and started a new company, Reliant Professional Services. The website advertises Scott as a “Professional Fiduciary.” According to Gary Duke, who is legal counsel for the DCA, this offering of services without the proper license constitutes a misdemeanor. In a recent interview with Duke, he expressed concern that the police agencies in San Bernardino are not adequately pursuing allegations of criminal activity by Scott and her cohorts, including attorney J. David Horspool.

“There is a network down there,” stated Duke, “and they watch each others´ backs.”
Horspool, who has represented Scott, told the Sentinel “The state came in and destroyed Ms. Scott’s business without the least effort at conducting an objective investigation.”

With regard to the suggestion that he had engaged in criminal activity in conjunction with Scott, Horspool wrote, “I have no comment about anything Janet Phelan says or writes, as she is not a real journalist, but a nut job with an axe to grind. Any allegations that come from her are automatically suspect.”

A source close to Melodie Scott reports that she remains confident that she will soon achieve licensure

Elders Having Fun in the D.R.

A Nursing Home In The Dominican Republic - Watch the top videos of the week here

----- Original Message -----

From: Dale Allen

To: ray@cyberray.com

Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 7:14 PM

Subject: [SPAM] Re:ANGER

This email was interesting apparently the Senator knows about the corruption. As a lawyer how could he not know? What I find interesting in his question that anyone out here has any suggestions of how to tackle the problem that now engulfs all the states. He should realize when the American people no longer trust the judicial system then freedom is at stake for all. What I would like to know what is the reason that we now have to have these guardians when after all these years the American family has been very good at taking care of its members except when a person finds them self the last of the line. Dale
--------------------------------------
Editor:

Dale you make a very good point, when I visited Latin countries recently it is a well established fact that we take care of our own and I was hard pressed find a nursing home, when I did find one it was administered by Catholic Nuns you can see it here after a brief intro: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/988402/a_nursing_home_in_the_dominican_republic/

All the work we performed by volunteers in a loving fashion, with weekend outings to the beach, etc.... When I asked how much it cost to keep an elder there, the cost was -0- .Work was all done lovingly by volunteers! for free!I was informed that the the reasons that they were there because they were the last of the line. Watch the video, when I asked if I could take pictures they said "Why Not?" in contrast in the US it costs thousands to keep an elder there, under conditions so bad that they shudder should you ask to take pictures! What a shame, How could the American people be so indifferent? Do they think that they are immune to the ravages of time? Dale another explanation is that American society has been brought up to be so materialistic that to go go out and earn a buck is more important than for any members of the family to take turns taking care of grandma/pa , elders are not bringing any money home therefor they are useless eaters to be confined to die in a old's people warehouse, this is so well established in American society, that any of us that want to take care of the old folks are seen as an anomaly, there must be something wrong with us, or we must have ulterior motives! It is not normal! We must ostracized. Then there is the financial aspect, if they are broke, no ones cares, if they have saved up for their old age, then surely you must not be allowed to take care of them, you must have other motives, and that must not happen, a guardian and his armies of attorneys, fiduciaries must me put in charge, no matter how many lives they destroy in the process, only and only if they IP incapacitated person survives the process when the money is gone are you allowed a chance to care for them, as is the case with my mother Clara G. Fernandez, (well documented here) after 5 years of legions of attorneys gorging themselves at the probate feeding trough , were we allowed to take care of her, but only when all the money in the Trust was gone. Ray

Guardianships Numbers Is The Best Kept Secret In America

How many guardianships are there in the United States? To date, we do not have an accurate assessment of the number of open adult guardianship and conservatorship cases.



Source=>http://www.eldersandcourts.org/guardianship/data.html

Let's put the seniors in jail, and the criminals in a nursing home.

Let's put the seniors in jail, and the criminals in a nursing home.

This way the seniors would have access to showers, hobbies,

and walks, they'd receive unlimited free prescriptions, dental

and medical treatment , wheel chairs etc. and they'd receive money instead of

paying it out.

They would have constant video monitoring, so they could be

helped instantly ,if they fell, or needed assistance.

Bedding would be washed twice a week, and all clothing would be

ironed and returned to them.

A guard would check on them every 20 minutes, and bring their meals

and snacks to their cell. They would have family visits in a suite built for that purpose.

They would have access to a library, weight room,spiritual counselling, pool, and education.

Simple clothing , shoes, slippers, P.J.'s and legal aid would be free, on request.

Private, secure rooms for all, with an exercise outdoor yard ,with gardens

Each senior could have a P.C. a T.V.. radio, and daily phone calls.

There would be a board of directors , to hear complaints, and the guards

would have a code of conduct, that would be strictly adhered to.

The "criminals" would get cold food, be left all alone, and unsupervised,

lights off at 8pm, and showers once a week.

Live in a tiny room , and pay $5000..00 per month and have no hope

of ever getting out.

Justice for all.

Linda M. Banta & Laura Spease, Conservatorship, Abuse, Berkeley, California,

AVOID Conservator LINDA BANTA & Attorney LAURA SPEASE if you care about your loved ones at all! In fact, do WHATEVER you can to prevent a loved one being placed under a guardianship or conservatorship!

Some years ago my elderly parents were forced into a California conservatorship (known as guardianship in most states) by a sibling when they had become unable to care for themselves. Because I lived out of state California law prohibited me from being the conservator, so I agreed to the conservatorship because I innocently believed that the county Court would oversee how my parents’ estate was spent carefully, assure responsible management of their health care and emotional well-being.

NOTHING could be further from the truth!

Linda M. Banta came highly recommended by an attorney, MARGARET HAND, who I now realize is in on this business of taking the elderly for all they've got while disregarding their stated wishes and emotional needs. At the time the Court allowed Linda Banta to take 1% of the estate each year so she had the properties appraised at high value.

Now the Court rules dictate she charge $115/hour [which equals $239,200/year] and she is certainly not very competent at handling many of the tasks her fiduciary role requires. She doesn't even oversee the care herself, but hires Geriatric "Care" Managers, one of whom, AMY PIERI, charges $115/hr; another, CHRIS HENDRICKSON is also paid at such lucrative rates. Neither Linda Banta or LAURA SPEASE have any respect for family who actually CARE about my parents and Laura Spease even violatd my rights when her office fail to mail notice that the court requires that would provide me knowledge and the ability to respond to their actions, as required by law.

They restrict family visits despite my parents' BEGGING to be able to see me more. I'll spare you the details as there are THOUSANDS of stories exactly like this across the country. In fact, the Senate is holding hearings soon, so make a report to the Government Accounting Office if you know of any. Call Sandra Moore at 202-512-4910 at GAO.

If you are considering guardianship or are already involved with one that is abusive, look at websites such as www.EstateofDenial.com or Janet Phelan’s work on www.ScamRaiders.com to discover how the courts are allowing incredible exploitation of seniors and the disabled.

Find another alternative -- a trusted family friend, a cousin, ANYONE who is not a part of this racket. Their main predatory interest is MONEY, so if you or anyone you care about has substantial assets (over $100K), BEWARE!

I have protested the excessive expenditures in every aspect of Linda Banta’s work, but the Court totally disregards all my statements. In many states is it not necessary to have anything but hearsay to "prove" incompetence.

Texas legislators are being confronted by the fact that courts there hold secret hearings where the involved parties are not notified and not present. No, I'm not paranoid.

This is all true. Most people can't believe this gulag is happening in this country.

Sadly, I, too, was once Innocent.

Source>Fraudbug.Com

Gestapo Like Conduct Destroys Lives With Impunity

If there was a contest for "Worst Place For (Gay)Elderly to Live," Sonoma County, California would have to be on the short list, based on what they did to two elderly gay gentlemen, Clay Greene and Harold Scull, pictured here in happier times. Clay Greene was living in his home in **Sonoma County, with his partner of 20 years, Harold Scull. Harold, then 88 years old, fell and was hospitalized. What happened then is every elder person’s – and gay person’s – worse nightmare. The County sprung into action, removing Clay from his home, and sending Clay and Harold, against their will, to separate nursing homes.

Although Clay and Harold had *wills, powers of attorney, and medical directives, all naming each other as their responsible persons, the County even obtained court orders preventing Clay and Harold from seeing each other. The County sold their belongings at auction, and as reported by Scott James of the New York Times, removed the men’s cats from their home, right in front of Clay Green. Clay is still haunted by the scene. “When Clay M. Greene remembered the events of June 2008, he clenched his teeth, his hands tightened into fists and his body shook. They grabbed them by their necks and tossed them in a car,’ he said last week, recalling the fate of his beloved cats, Sassy and Tiger. He never saw them again.” Harold died in the nursing home, a few months later. With the assistance of a court-appointed attorney, Anne Dennis, of Santa Rosa, Clay was finally released from the nursing home According to Kay Kendall of the Bilerico Project, all Clay has left from his life together with Harold is a photograph. The rest was destroyed by the County.

Clay Greene has decided to strike back against this despicable and egregious conduct, and is suing Sonoma County for violation of his civil rights – as an elder and as a gay man – in a lawsuit that will go to trial in July. Clay is from a generation that was forced to live their lives behind closed doors, so he does not use the term “gay” to describe himself, or the term “same sex partner” to describe his relationship with Harold. By standing up for himself, though, he will vindicate the rights of senior citizens in general and gay senior citizens in particular who live in fear that the same thing could happen to themselves.

To read the New York Times article about Clay Greene, click here. To read Kay Kendall’s article in Bilerico, click here.

You can learn more about the lawsuit, by visiting a Facebook page set up by Clay's supporters: www.facebook.com/JusticeForClay?v=app_2347471856

Felicia Curranwww.ElderAdvocacyLaw.com

-------------------------------------------------------

"Although Clay and Harold had wills, powers of attorney, and medical directives, all naming each other as their responsible persons, the County even obtained court orders preventing Clay and Harold from seeing each other." We realized that Wills,Trusts,Medical Directives give a false sense of security as this case clearly proves it means nothing. These legal papers costs thousands to produce, yet they often are not worth the paper the are written on as the courts do not recognize or respect them, just ask Clay Greene or ask me, my mother spent thousands drawing up Trusts, Directives, Addendums, POA's yet it meant little , Probate courts and guardians do not pay a whole lot of attention to these papers and they do what they please free of any legal constraints..

* It doesn't matter if you are gay,straight,white,black,famous, or have a will or not , if you are under the radar are an older citizen and have something of value you are vulnerable and a target for 'IRA' Involuntary Redistribution of Assets ,involuntary lock up, and euthanasia.

**And apparently the writer is not acquainted with the problem as most aren't until it happens to them, then I get a "I can't believe this can happen here/to me letter" it's just not Sonoma county it's anytown,USA.

Alleged Co-Conspirator Presides Over Case

by Janet Phelan

As a reporter, I am reluctant to report on issues where I am an affected party. The idea of the “objective” reporter, which we learn as a mantra in Journalism School, largely dissuades us from reporting on events which impact us directly. However, as I watch the mainstream press twist facts and spin stories in order to protect and please those in power, I have come to see objectivity as a false flag under which mainstream media does repeated damage to the truth.

The story below certainly does involve me. The facts cited are sustained not only by my personal testimony, but are buttressed by court records and other external documentation. Given the seriousness of what is reported herein, given the potential for a similar deprivation of rights to all who set foot inside Riverside Superior Courthouse, I find it necessary to write this, my story.

On May 5, 2010, Judge Stephen Cunnison emerged from retirement to preside over several hearings concerning a case enumerated as RIP 080974, the Conservatorship of Amalie Phelan. Amalie, who is now deceased, was my mother. The case had been transferred from Judge Gary Tranbarger to Cunnison on April 26, 2010. Tranbarger is the third judge to be suddenly pulled off this case following my research on property loans taken out by judges, first reported in the San Bernardino County Sentinel and archived here (http://www.scamraiders.com/profiles/blogs/judges-involved-in-multiple). On calendar was a lawsuit against former Conservator/

Trustee Melodie Scott. The lawsuit named Judge Stephen Cunnison as acting in a capacity which could be considered as “co-conspirator” with Melodie Scott. And on May 5th, Stephen Cunnison threw out the lawsuit which named him a compromised judge.

Count VI, entitled “Fraud Upon the Court and Undue Influence,” alleged that Melodie Scott had exercised “undue influence” over several judges through the course of RIP 080974 and specifically named actions by Stephen Cunnison as profoundly illegal. I maintain that these actions by Stephen Cunnison resulted in Amalie Phelan’s death.

My mother first visited Attorney J. David Horspool in the fall of 2001. My sister, Judith Phelan, had been residing with my widowed mother, and following the death of our father in 1997, had been stealing from the family estate, at one time valued at approximately $1 million dollars. In an effort to curtail the hemorrhaging of the estate by my sister and reluctant to initiate criminal proceedings against her, my mother and I approached J. David Horspool, seeking a bookkeeper to handle the funds of my mother, who was in her eighties.

In December of 2001 my mother and I met with Melodie Scott and Horspool. Scott expressed consternation at my sister's behavior, and stated she would "cut Judith off." Not wishing to leave her elder daughter destitute (Judith, though well-educated, is psychiatrically and physically disabled and does not work), my mother expressed her wish that Judith not be "cut off" but be granted adequate funds for her needs.

On December 2, 2001, my mother signed a document nominating Melodie Scott as conservator of her person and estate. In the Living Will set up by my parents in 1997 by Attorney Mark Anderson of Escondido, a conservator was named in advance should this prove necessary. An old family friend, James Henderson of Riverside, had been designated as "stand-by" should conservatorship prove necessary. He was also named successor trustee. In the meetings with Scott and Horspool we were at no time given input as to the difference between a “conservator” and a fiduciary or even a bookkeeper.

In light of the actions embarked on by Horspool and Scott against the best interests of Amalie and me, her signing the conservatorship nomination proved disastrous.

Almost immediately, Scott started funneling thousands of dollars a month to Judith. In a moment of rare and uncharacteristic honesty, Judith referred to these payments as “hush money.” Scott placed aides in my mother's home, ostensibly to care for Amalie, although none were needed before. On several occasions she threatened to call the police on me when I came to visit Amalie. Very shortly, Amalie requested I find her an attorney to consult on this matter, as she was distressed by Scott's behavior.

And then Amalie went down. Alarmed at how she sounded during a routine phone call in mid-June of 2002, I rushed to Temecula to find her too ill to even walk unassisted, and nearly delirious. I trundled her into my car and took her to the Emergency Room at Rancho Springs Hospital where she was evaluated and admitted. Shortly thereafter, she was taken into surgery and a pacemaker was inserted. Two days later, I was served with a Temporary Restraining Order. Melodie Scott had gone to court and said that I had “harmed” my mother by “unnecessarily” transporting her to the hospital.

On August 1, 2002, Stephen Cunnison was set to preside over two hearings. One was a hearing on the permanent conservatorship of Amalie Phelan, as the conservatorship moved from temporary to permanent. This was set for 8:30 a.m. On the docket following this hearing was a hearing on the above cited Restraining Order.

As far as I could see it, this Restraining Order hearing was going to be a slam-dunk. I would tell the judge the truth—my mother was close to death and received life-saving cardiac surgery as a result of the hospitalization. But Stephen Cunnison never called the Restraining Order to hearing. He left the courtroom following the hearing on the permanent conservatorship and the courtroom was then closed. I, along with a party who accompanied me to court that day, was told to leave the courtroom. Stephen Cunnison violated the Constitutional Right to Due Process and signed my Restraining Order into permanence without ever allowing me to face my accusers. The Minute Order for the hearing, signed by Stephen Cunnison on August 1, is archived here (http://media.portland.indymedia.org/media/2006/12/350954.pdf) along with other relevant documents pertaining to this case. Aptly, the minute order reveals no one as listed as being in court, revealing Cunnison did not call this to hearing. The subsequent document was produced by my witness to that morning’s events.

But Scofflaw Cunnison didn’t stop there. He was to preside over a second Restraining Order hearing against me in October of 2002 and signed an order barring me from contacting the police, the FBI, The Ombudsman for Nursing Care and nearly anyone else who could have assisted Amalie Phelan, as I could no longer protect her, being “legally” restrained from my own mother. In that second hearing I asked Cunnison to recuse himself. He refused to do so.

Amalie soon died under suspicious circumstances. I was not informed of her death until weeks after she was buried. Possibly this was what Judith had referred to as the impetus for the “hush money.”

I filed suit against Melodie Scott, alleging multiple serious crimes. Upon discovering that Cunnison was again assigned to my case in May of 2010, I filed for his recusal. These papers were entered into the court file on May 5. The Challenge for Cause cites his heinous and illegal actions back in 2002.

In his denial of this request to have him recused, Cunnison determined that I should have moved to have him kicked off the case back in 2002. Which I had done. Other judges took over the case from 2003 on and I had no reason to suspect that he would emerge to further assault the law and my rights.

But he did.

Incidentally, the California Code of Civil Procedure 1013 (a) mandates ten extra days for notice to parties residing outside of the State of California and twenty extra days for those residing outside of the U.S. I have repeatedly noticed the court that I am residing in Toronto and that my mail is bundled from Ashland, Oregon and Fedexed to me in Toronto. Even if the court only ignored the fact that I now reside in Canada and chose to attend to my Oregon address, the ten extra days for service were not satisfied by re-scheduling from April 26th to May 5th.

The station at the court responsible for checking these details is the Probate Examiner, Elizabeth Miller. I spoke with Miller recently and told her that the court was ignoring the extended time for service, mandated by CCP 1013 (a) and ignoring my repeated filings to this effect. “Just keep telling the court,” she exhorted.

If the Riverside Superior Court can’t do any better than appoint a “Red Queen Judge” to destroy my family, destroy my ability to protect my mother from an obvious liar and plunderer and destroy my God-given rights to appeal to law enforcement to protect a vulnerable elderly person, I have only one question left:

What should I tell the court? What possible words are there to convey the damage done by this Constitution-denying scofflaw who has now quashed my lawsuit against the woman who, in concert with him, destroyed my family?

I fear we are living in lawless times, distinguished only by the fact that so many Americans have not yet realized this. As painful as it may be to realize that the promise of freedom, of equal protection under the law, is a farce and an illusion, it is imperative we wake up before we lose everything. My mother, who had a PhD and worked decades as a City Health Department supervisor, lost her life because of the illegal actions of an absolute stranger who had total power to hurt her. I have left the country of my birth to avoid a similar attack. If we have no protection from the justice system, then who do we turn to?

Women Take Guardianship Fight to State Lawmakers

by MONIKA DIAZ
WFAA
Posted on May 9, 2010 at 11:04 PM

Families ripped apart in guardianship court hearings plan to take their fight to the State Capitol. They call themselves victims of the state's system.
Kathie Seidel is one of four North Texas families planning to testify at a May 12 Senate committee hearing on Health and Human Services.

Four years ago, she lost guardianship of her adopted daughter, Katia. Seidel was declared unfit to take care of her. The 24-year-old, who has mental health problems, is living at a group home.
"I haven't seen my daughter in more than a year on a holiday," Seidel said. "Her brother is suffering. They are both adopted and he misses her. It's like we really don't have the family any more."

The family's pain is one Sharon Richardson knows all too well. Richardson's guardianship over her mother, Ernestine Starks, was revoked nearly a year ago.
Starks is living at a nursing home.

"We have limited access to our mother, so it has been really hard on the family," Richardson said. "It's just not the same."

In both cases, guardianship was removed in an ex-parte hearing; that's when a judge issues an order or verdict without all the parties involved being present.

"I was removed in a secret hearing, and didn't even know it was happening," Seidel said.
Seidel and Richardson want to stop these hearings. They also want transparency and to extend the time period families can appeal a judge's decision on guardianship.
"We would like laws to be put in place so this does not happen to other families," Richardson said.

They hope their experiences lead to change and bring their loved ones home.
"We brought her [Katia] here to give her opportunities," Seidel said. "Her brother is doing well. We just want that same opportunity for her to learn and grow."
Richardson hopes all the families participating in the hearings get the homecoming they've been waiting for.

"We want the laws to protect the people," Richardson said. "We want our mother's civil rights restored. We just want her to come home."
E-mail mdiaz@wfaa.com

Related:Aging in America: Family struggles with guardianship issues

Lady Worth 1.3 Million Now Dependent on State Support After Being Fleeced

by Laurie Roberts, Maricopa Co. Arizona

A Maricopa County probate judge has been asked to punish a pair of attorneys in the case of the old lady who was worth $1.3 million and now depends on taxpayers for support.

No, it’s not the attorneys who collected tens and even hundreds of thousands dollars from the old lady’s trust who could be in trouble.

It’s the attorneys who worked for free, the ones who tried to stop the wholesale draining of Marie Long’s account, who could be on the hook.

Sun Valley Group is asking that attorneys Pat Gitre and Dan Raynak be sanctioned and ordered to pay $13,518 of the company’s legal fees for suing Sun Valley.

This, apparently, is what you get in probate for trying to advocate for a defenseless widow.

Meanwhile, there is a glimmer of good news for Marie, who came under the protection of probate court after having a stroke in 2005. She may have a shot at getting some of her money back. It seems Pro-tem Judge Lindsay Ellis slipped up and didn’t approve the final $66,000 Sun Valley contends it’s owed — for 13 months of guardian work in December 2008 and 2009 – before washing her hands of the case last month. She also didn’t approve nearly $38,000 requested by one of Sun Valley’s attorneys for work in the 10 months before Marie’s trust was finally sucked dry. This, according to the court commissioner who inherited the case.

It now appears that Ellis only allowed a small army of probate “protectors” to collect $786,000 from the old lady — fees Ellis deemed “reasonable, necessary and for the benefit of the ward” – not the nearly $890,000 as originally thought.

In a hearing this week, Commissioner David Cunanan said that Ellis’ 21-page ruling didn’t cover the 2009 portion of Sun Valley’s fee request. “She (Ellis) could have approved SVG’s fees and she could have approved the other attorney’s fees, but she didn’t,” he said.

Cunanan set a hearing for later this month on Sun Valley’s final fee request. If approved, that’ll boost Sun Valley’s total take from Marie to more than $417,000.

Speaking of Sun Valley, its attorneys this week took up a suggestion by Ellis and went after Gitre and Raynak, the attorneys for Marie’s sisters. Ellis, in her March ruling, blamed Gitre and Raynak along with Marie’s attorney Jon Kitchel for driving up fees, citing their “venomous” and “hateful” attacks on Sun Valley and various probate attorneys as they repeatedly objected to the drain on Marie’s account.

Sun Valley, in its request for sanctions, contends that Gitre and Raynak had no legal standing to sue for breach of fiduciary duty, saying the suit was filed “to harass SVG in an attempt to force the resignation of SVG as guardian.”

The lawsuit, filed in May 2009 on behalf of both Marie and her sisters, claimed that Sun Valley had a duty to investigate whether the Arizona Department of Veterans Services would have served as Marie’s guardian for a fraction of the nearly $183,000 in guardian fees paid to Sun Valley. (Court records say ADVS would have served as Marie’s guardian for $75 a month because she was the widow of a veteran.) They also claimed Sun Valley violated a Supreme Court rule against self dealing by hiring itself to also provide companion care to Marie and that it charged unreasonable fees.

Sun Valley, in its request for sanctions, notes that it offered $50,000 to settle the suit but “Marie Long and her sisters demanded $240,000” and ultimately got nothing because the case was dismissed.

Sun Valley is absolutely right about that.

Marie’s attorney and her sisters did demand $240,000 – for Marie’s care. In settlement negotiations last fall – as Marie’s account was running dry — the sisters proposed that Sun Valley provide 88-year-old Marie with $10,000 a month for the rest of her life, to provide for her needs. Sun Valley offered $50,000, an offer that came with a requirement that none of this become public, according to an e-mail outlining the offer. Kitchel then countered with $240,000 and Sun Valley never responded.

In the end, Marie got nothing.

Ellis dismissed Marie’s portion of the lawsuit last fall, saying she’s incapacitated and thus can’t sue Sun Valley to get any of her money back. Ellis also ruled that Marie’s attorney lacked the authority to sue Sun Valley to get any of her money back. Then in her ruling last month, Ellis threw out the sisters’ suit, saying they, too, couldn’t sue Sun Valley to get any of Marie’s money back.

In the world of probate court, nobody, it seems, can sue to get any of Marie’s money back – at least nobody who actually would.

Handy, how that works, isn’t it?

Editor’s note: Roberts’ sister, Appellate Court Judge Ann Timmer, is chairing a committee to review Probate Court practices. The Republic is disclosing the relationship to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest.

Source=>>

Related: Elderly millionaire destitute after ....

DO YOU WANT YOUR CASE TO BE KNOWN IN WASHINGTON, D.C.?

For all family victims of guardianship abuse, if you have not, yet, called the Government Accountability Office, please, do, so. If this is new information, to you, the GAO is doing an "intake" on guardian abuse and they want your calls. Please, asap, call Sandra Moore at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Washington, D.C. @ 202-512-4910. This intake is on behalf of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, with the office of the Committee Chair, Senator Herb Kohl. We are anticipating hearings, as a result of this intake. It was precipitated, as a result of many complaints, so, please, make your call, as soon as possible. Thank you, and keep in touch, for updates!

Senate Special Committee on Aging, with Senator Kohl's office. PLEASE, understand that "Guardianship" (or Conservatorship) issues are, currently, being investigated. This intake period will, soon, come to an end and, depending on the complaints, may or MAY NOT result in Senate hearings on Capitol Hill. If these hearings do not take place, we will have missed a, crucial, opportunity to have our voices heard! It may be the last opportunity, in a long time!

PLEASE, CALL:

Cara Goldstein (Policy Advisor, Special Committee on Aging, Senator Her Kohl, Chairman) @ 202-224-5364.

THEN, PLEASE, call:

Sandra Moore at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) @ 202-512-4910.

Please, also, let us know how things went, with your calls. Although, Cara will not be the person taking your complaint, she needs to know that you have called, so, that your voice is heard.

I, firmly, believe, that of all the actions available for this group, this is one of the most important, to be taken!